Manufacturers of passenger and cargo vehicles, such as automobiles (including SUVs and the like), trucks, trains, aircraft, marine craft, and the like, continuously strive to make the vehicles more fuel efficient while at the same time improving the safety for passengers and/or operators of the vehicles. One way in which fuel may be conserved is to make the vehicle weigh less. As such, particularly in automobiles, alternative materials such as polymeric materials have replaced metal in many areas of the vehicle.
Many years ago, manufacturers generally eliminated the heavy, metal bulkhead between the trunk and passenger compartments which had often been found in conventional sedan-type automobiles. Further, due to the desirability of having a means for transporting oversized cargo, manufacturers began to design and sell fold-down seats to accommodate pass-through cargo from the trunk to the passenger compartments. However, safety requirements relating to the restraint of cargo within the trunk under certain conditions sometimes necessitated finding a replacement for the metal bulkhead. Further, it was unfortunately discovered that in certain instances some latching mechanisms for fold-down seats at times were not strong enough to withstand forces experienced under some frontal crash conditions. Due to passengers being restrained from bending over due to the 3 point passenger passive restraint systems, such latching mechanism failures could possibly in some cases contribute to injury of passengers.
Although many lighter materials exist, these materials generally do not pass safety requirements since they often fail in restraining cargo in the trunk from inadvertently entering the passenger compartment. The suitable replacement materials which do exist are either cost prohibitive, or for strength they must be much wider than standard sheet metal used—as such, they therefore cannot fit within the space constraints of the automobile.
One such replacement is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,026,231 issued in 1991. The automotive barrier net disclosed therein was a suitable metal bulkhead replacement; and in certain situations, may yet be a suitable replacement therefor. However, since the invention of that barrier net, more stringent safety standards have been proposed relating to the restraint of cargo within the trunk area.
An example of such a requirement is found in the United Nations “Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these Prescriptions,” Addendum 16: Regulation No. 17, Revision 3, Amendment 4, Feb. 11, 2000, which publication is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Regulation No. 17 is entitled “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with regard to the Seats, their Anchorages and any Head Restraints.”
Annex 9 of Regulation No. 17 defines the test procedure for devices intended to protect the occupants against displacement of luggage. Paragraph 2 of Annex 9 of Reg. No. 17 specifies that two blocks each having a mass of 18 kg are to be placed in the trunk area. In a vehicle having an open area between the cargo and passenger space (e.g. in a stationwagon), a 10 kg block is placed in the cargo area, but upwardly so as to be directly adjacent an installed barrier device. Paragraph 2 of Annex 7 of Reg. No. 17 defines the conditions for the standardized vehicular crash test; and specifies that the speed on impact shall be between 48.3 km/h and 53.1 km/h. Paragraph 6.3.1 of Reg. No. 17 states that a longitudinal horizontal deceleration of not less than 20 g (1 g being approximately equal to 9.8 m/s2) shall be applied for 30 milliseconds in the forward direction to the whole shell of the vehicle in accordance with the requirements of Annex 7. Upon completion of such testing, the 18 kg blocks (and 10 kg block, if applicable) should not enter the passenger area.
This rather stringent requirement generally may not be met with many current automobiles. One alternative for meeting this requirement would be to reinforce the rearmost passenger seats with sheet metal. However, major drawbacks exist with this alternative, a few of which are that the sheet metal would add at least about 25 pounds to the weight of the automobile; it would be difficult and time consuming to design and test seat latch mechanisms which could withstand high enough loads under certain crash conditions; and retooling expenses would be very high.
Thus, it would be desirable to provide a load restraining barrier device which would advantageously pass applicable safety requirements. Further, it would be desirable to provide such a device which is aesthetically pleasing without a bulky frame(s), thereby advantageously being more lightweight. It would further be desirable to provide such a device which may be incorporated into current automotive designs with minimal changes thereto as an OEM part. Yet further, it would be desirable to provide such a device which is lightweight and relatively inexpensive to manufacture. Still further, it would be desirable to provide such a device which may be detached to advantageously provide pass-through cargo storage if desired. It is yet further desirable to provide such a device which, when detached, may fold easily and neatly into a small package for easy storage.